Asarah B'teves, The Ninth Of Teves, And The Pope by Rav Shloime Pollak

The first Slichah that we say on the fast day of Asarah B'teves is.....

  "אזכרה מצוק אשר קראני, "בשלוש" מכות בחודש זה הכאני". 

The "three" tragedies, are elaborated in the Slichah.... and the source of two of them is from a Megilas Taanis that is quoted in the Shulchan Aruch Arach Chaim (580).

In understanding the Shulchan Aruch, it becomes clear, that in fact there are FOUR tragedies.... and one is missing??....

For questions and comments please email salmahshleima@gmail.com

Tamar Epstein's Heter: The battle against the heter has been won according to unconfirmed reports

I received an email this morning which said that according to unconfirmed reports from reliable sources - Rav Nota Greenblatt has told Tamar and Adam that they need to separate. Baruch HaShem!!!

Given the worldwide outrage from gedolim from diverse sectors as well as the shocked reaction of the common man - and yeshiva students - the only question is why it took so long for R Greenblatt to wake up to the reality that he had made  an incredible blunder?

An indication of the severity of damage to the rabbinic credentials of Rabbis Greenblatt and Kaminetsky - is the praise that they have received from non-Orthodox and feminist sources. The Times of Israel reported a Conservative rabbi who refers to Rav Shmuel as his colleague! 

However the issues is not completely resolved - even if the report is true - because they have not publicly retracted the heter. Without a public acknowledgment of the irresponsible manner they went about giving the "heter" it will be repeated again and again by rabbis saying "annulment for psychological irritation based on a note from a psychologist - even if he never met the husband - is accepted by gedolim". Furthermore it has become clear that the heter of Rav Moshe has been misused and abused to justify many annulments in situations that Rav Moshe would never have permitted - not just this case. A heter that Rav Moshe meant for very rare and severe conditions has become a "cure" for every ache and discomfort in the hands of certain Orthodox rabbis.

The crisis has also revealed the corruption of a number of Orthodox rabbis in giving not only annulments but also in allowing cohanim to marry divorcees and other transgressions. It is not the Open Orthodox that is the main danger to Orthodoxy - but some of our very own poskim and rabbinic leaders. "We have met the enemy and it is us!"

Hopefully this crisis will be used to clean house and provide a mechanism of oversight for the divorce process. Hopefully it will also motivate the rabbonim to work harder to ameliorate the conditions of not only abused wives (agunas) but also husbands that are being publicly accused of all sorts of lies by wives who are being coached by rabbis, lawyers and other women to game the system. Time will tell whether the proper lessons have been learned or whether this is just the beginning of a new era of rabbinic corruption.

Rav Nota Greenblatt's relying on a psychiatrist's report based solely on severely biased testimony is not comparable to the evidence that Rav Moshe Feinstein used

There has been some complaints that I have been unfair in criticizing Rav Greenblatt's relying on a psychiatric report that he did not understand. A report  which was largely based on Tamar's hostile comments without the psychiarist meeting Aharon or giving him a chance to explain the truth of the assertions or even the context. It has been claimed that Rav Moshe Feinstein also relied on such expert testimony to decide if the marriage was a mistake and that the evidence he used was also hearsay.

However it is obviously that the Rav Moshe was not relying solely on the biased and subjective reports from an alleged victim. He dealt with cases where it was possible to objectively ascertain the truth of the problem. Furthermore the evidence was not contested as it is in the present case. 

Below is one of Rav Moshe's teshuvos describing the evidence he based himself to decide that the husband was mentally ill and to annul the marriage. This is clearly not the type of evidence that Rav Greenblatt used.

שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק א סימן פ
בדבר שוטה אם הוא מום גדול לבטל הקידושין אם לא ידעה כשא"א להשיג גט פטורין כ"ז ניסן תשט"ו. מע"כ ידידי הרה"ג מהר"ר זאב דרייזין שליט"א וכל ידידי הרבנים הגדולים והחשובים חברי ועד הרבנים בבאלטימאר /בלטימור/ שליט"א.

בדבר האשה שניסת לאחד ואחרי עבור איזה שבועות נעלם ממנה ועתה הוא בבית אביו וא"א להשיג גט פטורין באשר שאביו אינו מניח שום איש אליו משום שהוא חולה במחלת שטות שירא מאנשים וחושש אביו שיחלה ביותר עד שלא יוכלו להחזיקו בבית והיא עגונה זה כי"ד שנים ותובעת מהרבנים שישתדלו לתקנתה ונסעו שלשה רבנים לבית החולים של הצבא בפערי פוינט והשיגו רשיון לעיין בכל הנירות הנמצאים שם אודות חולה זה ששהה שם איזה חדשים והוריו הוציאו אותו משם למרות דעת הרופאים בהבטחתם שהם ישגיחו עליו בביתם ואמרו הרופאים להם כי הוא משוגע ממש לכל דבר. ובנירות נמצא כתב מרופא מומחה שנכתב בשנת ל"ח למספרם כי הוא משוגע גמור וגם היה הולך ערום ומאבד מה שנותנים לו וכדומה. ומכתב מפורט בחתימת ארבעה רופאים מומחים משנת מ"ד למספרם אשר ג"כ אומרים שהמחלה הותחלה בשנת ל"ח למספרם. ומשמע דעת הרופאים שאף בזמן שלא היה ניכר עליו עניני השטות שהרי בשנת מ"א למספרם היה חמשה חדשים בצבא ואחרי שנשתחרר מפני שנותיו נשא אחרי עבור שלשים את האשה הזאת וא"כ לא היה ניכר עליו סימני שטות דאם היה ניכר בו סימני שטות לא היו מקבלין אותו בצבא ולא היתה ניסת לו וגם אחרי שברח פתאם מביתו התנדב שוב לעבוד בצבא והיה שם ערך שתי שנים עד שראו שהוא משוגע והכניסוהו לבית החולים בפערי פוינט, מ"מ דעת הרופאים שמחלת השטות היתה בו בעצם בכל העת מפעם הראשון שנחלה בשנת ל"ח שהיה כשלש שנים קודם הנישואין. והאשה לא ידעה שהיה חולה בשנת ל"ח על מחלת שטות, לבד שמסתבר כן שהרי לא ידעו מזה אנשים אחרים כי הוריו הסתירו זה, ראו הרבנים שם בבית החולים מכתב אמו שמפרטת מצבו של בנה מיום הולדו הוזכר שם גם שכלתה היא אשתו של החולה לא ידעה מאומה ממחלתו הקודמת. ולכן מסתפקים כתר"ה אם יש להתירה מצד בטול הקידושין דאם היתה יודעת שהיה משגע לא היתה מתקדשת לו וכ"ש שהיה גם אז משגע כעדות הרופאים שודאי לא היתה מתקדשת לו. ומחמת שהוא ענין עגונה ששקדו חז"ל לתקנתה נזדקקתי לעיין בזה אף כי מה אני להורות בדבר חמור כזה והשי"ת יעזרנו שלא נכשל ח"ו ויורנו אמת להלכה ולמעשה.

Conservative Movement annuls marriages not only by mekach ta'us but also if their rabbis think it is a good idea - what do they think about this in Philadelphia and Memphis?

Times of Israel

Tamar Epstein became an agunah — a woman tragically chained to a defunct marriage — when her husband, Aharon Friedman, unscrupulously and vindictively refused to grant her a get, a Jewish religious divorce. 

The case — similar to a scandalously large number of similar situations involving “chained” women and recalcitrant husbands — received intense public scrutiny in part because Mr. Friedman was a staff aide to a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Rabbinic suasion and public excoriation nevertheless failed to move this particular recalcitrant to fulfill his religious obligation and terminate his marriage in accordance with Jewish law and morality. The couple’s marriage had already been dissolved in civil court.

Ms. Epstein recently has entered upon a new marriage in a ceremony solemnized by a prominent Orthodox rabbi. Her marriage to Friedman was annulled — or, more accurately, declared to have been invalid ab initio — by (as of the publication of an article on the case in the Forward) an as-yet-to-be-identified Orthodox rabbi in Philadelphia. I wish Ms. Epstein and her bridegroom, Adam Fleischer, much happiness and mazal tov — and I wish to express profound admiration and support for my anonymous Philadelphia colleague. As the Almighty promised His covenant partner, Abraham: “Your reward will be very great” (Genesis 15:1). [...]

In its recent article, the Forward quoted Rabbi Aharon Feldman of Baltimore’s Ner Israel Yeshiva as calling for the former agunah (whose original marriage, and therefore whose status as an agunah, he deems to remain intact) to leave her new husband. Rabbi Feldman declares any future children born to the Fleischers to be mamzerim — “bastards”— themselves forever debarred from marriage to “legitimate” Jews. Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn similarly is quoted as describing the dissolution of Ms. Epstein’s first marriage as “a sad joke based on a clear corruption and misuse of halachic principles,” and declaring Ms. Epstein an “adulteress.” An organized effort (likely to exceed in volume and vitriol even the considerable campaign to persuade Mr. Friedman to grant a get in the first place) is underway to reject the Philadelphia-based annulment, to discourage like-minded rabbis from similar findings of law, and to deny the legitimacy of any such rabbinic actions that might be taken in the future. [...]

In addition to the principle of “mekach ta’ut,” the Talmud also asserts the far more controversial power of the rabbis to annul marriage (with cause) as an exercise of sheer authority. This extraordinary power is based on the premise that every Jewish marriage is contracted on rabbinic authority, and that the rabbis retain the concomitant prerogative to undo the marital bond unilaterally. The Forward quotes an anonymous Orthodox source as stating that this rabbinic power “has never been used in modern times.” This is untrue.

While the exercise of such sweeping rabbinic authority should be used rarely, only as a last resort, and with the utmost discretion, the Joint Bet Din of the Conservative movement does just that. Rabbinic authorities who not only delegitimize this mechanism of marital dissolution but who reject those who rightfully and courageously wield this power, on the basis of partisan religious politics alone, are complicit in creating agunot. They abet recalcitrant husbands in chaining their wives.

As a Conservative rabbi, it pains me to say it, but the efforts of the Joint Bet Din to free more agunot are impeded not only by the partisan attacks of our detractors, but by the religious laxity of some among our supporters and constituents. There are traditional, knowledgeable, pious Jewish women — including some affiliated with Orthodoxy — who would come to Conservative rabbis for relief from their status as agunot. They are dissuaded from doing so, however, by the fact that those authorities serve a constituency often lacking a fundamental commitment to Jewish law and observance. This leads observant agunot to neglect an invaluable (perhaps exclusive) resource for legitimate halachic relief. Conservative Jews who champion egalitarianism and pay lip service to the religious enfranchisement of Jewish women — yet whose personal halachic disengagement undermines the stature of their rabbis as religious decisors — thus are complicit in creating agunot. They abet recalcitrant husbands in chaining their wives. [...]

Mendel Epstein's torture for Get gang: Sentences for all members

Department of Justice press release

Department of Justice

U.S. Attorney’s Office

District of New Jersey

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Sentenced To Eight Years In Prison For Conspiring To Kidnap Jewish Husbands, Force Them To Consent To Religious Divorces

TRENTON, N.J. - An Orthodox Jewish Rabbi was sentenced today to 96 months in prison for conspiring to kidnap Jewish men in an effort to force them to give their wives religious divorces, referred to as “gets,” U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced.

Jay Goldstein a/k/a “Yaakov,” 61, of Brooklyn, New York, was previously convicted by a federal jury of Count One and Count Five of an indictment charging him with conspiracy to commit kidnapping and attempted kidnapping. Jay Goldstein was convicted following an eight-week trial before U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson, who imposed the sentence today in Trenton federal court.

According to documents filed in this case and the evidence at trial:

On Dec. 1, 2009, in Lakewood, an Orthodox Jewish man, Israel Markowitz, was assaulted, placed in a van, tied up, beaten and shocked with a stun-gun until he agreed to give his wife a get.

On Oct. 16, 2010, in Lakewood, another Orthodox Jewish man, Ysrael Bryskman, was assaulted, tied up and beaten until he agreed to give his wife a get.

On Aug. 22, 2011, in Brooklyn, another Orthodox Jewish man, Usher Chaimowitz, and his roommate, Menachem Teitlebaum, were assaulted, tied up and beaten until Chaimowitz agreed to give his wife a get.

Based upon these incidents, the FBI began an undercover operation in August 2013 in which two FBI agents posed as a wife who was seeking a get from her recalcitrant husband, and her brother, who was trying to help her obtain the get. Over the next several weeks, the undercover agents had multiple recorded phone calls and in-person meetings with Mendel Epstein, 70, Lakewood, New Jersey. In those meetings, Epstein arranged to have his team kidnap the husband at a warehouse in exchange for $60,000.

On Oct. 9, 2013, Jay Goldstein, his sons Moshe Goldstein, 32, and Avrohom Goldstein, 36, and others – including Binyamin Stimler, 40, Simcha Bulmash, 32, David Hellman, 33, Sholom Shuchat, 31, all of Brooklyn, and Ariel Potash, 42, of Monsey, New York – traveled from New York to a warehouse in Middlesex County, New Jersey, to execute the planned kidnapping of the husband to force him to give the get.

They arrived at the warehouse in two dark minivans shortly after 8:00 p.m. Some of the kidnap team members put on masks and entered the warehouse office with the undercover agent posing as the brother. The remaining kidnappers walked around the outside with flashlights. Over the next 15 minutes, members of the kidnap team went in and out of the warehouse office wearing disguises, including ski masks, Halloween masks and bandanas. They discussed their plan for kidnapping and assaulting the husband, how they planned to grab him, pull him down, tie him up, and take his phone. Members of the kidnap team brought with them to the warehouse a 30-foot nylon rope, a blindfold, vodka, license plates they had switched out, and items used to ceremonially record the get. At 8:23 p.m., law enforcement moved into the warehouse office and arrested the eight men.

In addition to the prison term, Judge Wolfson sentenced Jay Goldstein to five years of supervised release.

Avrohom Goldstein, Potash, Shuchat, Moshe Goldstein, Hellman, and Bulmash have all pleaded guilty to one count of traveling in interstate commerce to commit extortion. Avrohom Goldstein and Potash were sentenced Nov. 19, 2015 to 45 and 14 months in prison, respectively. Shuchat was sentenced to time served on Nov. 19, 2015. Moshe Goldstein was sentenced Nov. 16, 2015 to 48 months in prison. Hellman and Bulmash were sentenced Nov. 17, 2015 to 44 and 48 months in prison, respectively. Martin Wolmark, 57, of Monsey, previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce to commit extortion and was sentenced Dec. 14, 2015 to 38 months in prison.

Epstein and Stimler were also previously convicted at trial of Count One of the indictment charging them with conspiracy to commit kidnapping. Stimler was additionally convicted on Count Five of the indictment, attempted kidnapping. Epstein and Stimler were sentenced yesterday to 120 and 39 months in prison, respectively.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge Richard M. Frankel in Newark, and the Lakewood Police Department with the investigation.

The government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorneys R. Joseph Gribko and Sarah M. Wolfe of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Trenton.

15-464

USAO - New Jersey

Violent Crimes

Is There Any Valid Reason For The Posek In Our Case To Rely Entirely On What He Was Told?

Guest Post by Ploni

I believe that there are several solid reasons why in our case there is absolutely no צד whatsoever to allow a Posek to rely on what he was told. My hope is that this comment will be מעורר Talmidei Chachomim to be מעיין בדין זה עד שיצא לאורה. At the end of the comment, please see several מקורות on which this comment is based

לפענ"ד the whole question of being able to rely on what a שואל relates to a Posek without fact checking would ע"פ דינא דשו"ע not apply here for several reasons:

1) The נידון here is at the very least one of דיני ממונות (assuming RMF's comparison to מקח טעות). The possible exclusion from due diligence is only by איסורים. This would mandate that the Psak should be בפני בעל דין, meaning AF.

2) The נידון here is a question of being פוגם בכבודו ובכבוד אבותיו of AF. The possible exclusion from due diligence even by איסורים is only when nobody's כבוד is נפגם. This would also mandate that the Psak should be בפני בעל דין, meaning AF.

3) the נידון here is one of a דין מרומה - There were and remain now many "red flags" about the involvement of certain people, the fact that the diagnosis wasn't brought up earlier, contradictions to TE's testimony and diary notes, etc. The possible exclusion from due diligence even by איסורים like עגונה is only when there is no חשש דין מרומה. This also mandates that the Psak should be בפני בעל דין, meaning AF. Additionally, this would mandate דרישה וחקירה, and according to many (and perhaps most) Poskim "pleading the fifth" or saying "I don't know" (which is happening בנידון דידן) would of itself be a reason לבטל הדין.

4) Furthermore, if we take the stance of those Rabbonim who believe that the הפקעת קידושין is in error, but that AF nevertheless has a חיוב לגרש (like the YU Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshivos and many in Silver Spring), there seems to be a fourth issue here: the נידון here is one of לאסור אשה לבעלה, since by virtue of this Psak TE is now אסורה לבעלה. The possible exclusion from due diligence even by איסורים is only where there is no question לאוסרה על בעלה, which according to most Poskim would require both בפני בעל דין and also דרישה וחקירה, as mention in paragraph. #3.

The aforementioned is לפענ"ד in large measure the result of a single but terrible mistake arising from a mistaken belief in the VALIDITY of psychological diagnosis.

Everyone here agrees that the linchpin of נידון דידן depends on a DSM diagnosis, and the defense of the מתירים is (as RNG said) the belief that the psychologist's report is exactly like any matter where medical professionals have נאמנות. Under this assumption, psychology is like other areas of medicine, where certain illnesses can be diagnosed without ever meeting the patient. Had this belief been correct, many of the aforementioned problems might possibly not have applied.

It has, however, become abundantly clear from the very most authoritative sources in psychology, including from the architect of the DSM themselves, that forensic evaluations are extremely subjective and therefore require a whole slew of safeguards in order to be acceptable. THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY NO DISSENTERS TO THIS FACT IN THE UPPER ECHELONS OF THE FIELD , although clinicians vey often ignore it. See, for example the posts at: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/...

and 

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/...

Especially enlightening is the four published papers (links at the "secular evaluations post) regarding the six most important question in psychology, in which TWENTY FIVE of the top experts in the field participated, and not a single one attempted to equate psychology to objective medicine.

Therefore, ANY possible היתר to continue without קבלת עדות לפני הבעל דין and without דרישה וחקירה are extremely questionable, to say the least.

מקורות - כמובן רק מעט מזעיר ....

א) בדין קבלת עדות בדיני ממונות שלא בפני בע"ד, ע' חו"מ ס' כ"ח סט"ו, שאם קבלו אין דנים על פיו לדעת הב"י בשם רבי מנחם וכן הוא במהרש"ל, אמנם לדעת ר"י ומרדכי כשר בדיעבד. ולפי הכרעת המהרא"י דוקא בגבר אלם שא"א בענין אחר מקבלין, ופשוט שטעם זה אין שייך כאן בנד"ד. (וודאי יהי' כאלו שירצו לתרץ מטעם מש"כ ברמ"א שבקטטות ומריבות מותר כדי להשקיט המריבה, אבל כבר דן בזה המהרש"ל בנידון הדומה לשלנו שעושים ההיפוך ומרבים מחלוקות, ובין כך אין היתר לפגום בכבוד אדם משום זה כמבואר לקמן, ואכמ"ל).

ב) לענין פגם בכבודו ובכבוד אבותיו ע' בשו"ת המהרש"ל סי"א בנידון הדומה הרבה לשלנו ר"ל שכ' המהרש"ל שגביית עדות לפסול איש מחזקת כשרותו ופוגם בכבודו וכבוד אבותיו .. פשיטא ופשיטא שאף בדיעבד אינו כשר והעדים והבית דין עברו משום לא תשא שמע שוא וכו

ע' מש"כ בשו"ת המהרש"ל סי"א במעשה שהי' שם הדומה קצת לנידון דידן שבי"ד גבו עדות שלא בפני בעל דין "להורידו מחזקת כשרות בעידי כיעור", וז"ל:

אבל גביית עדות לפסול איש מחזקת כשרותו לפגום בכבודו וכבוד אבותיו ... פשיטא ופשיטא שאף בדיעבד אינו כשר והעדים והבית דין עברו משום לא תשא שמע שוא וקרינן בי' לא תשיא וראוים להשליך לכלבים כדאיתא במסכת שבועות והסמ"ג הביאו (הגמ' בשבועות לא מנין לדיין שלא ישמע דברי בעל דין (חבירו) קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו ת''ל מדבר שקר תרחק מנין לבעל דין שלא יטעים דבריו לדיין קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו ת''ל מדבר שקר תרחק רב כהנא מתני {שמות כ-ז} מלא תשא לא תשיא): וראה נא ראה עד כמה חשו עמודי עולם על כגון דא

ג) לגבי דין מרומה ומקום שיש לחוש לערמה, הנה אפי' לענין להתיר עגונה מבואר באהע"ז סי"ז סכ"א ברמ"א בשם רי"ו שצריך דרישה וחקירה , ולענין דיני ממונות מבואר בחו"מ ס"ל ס"א וגם בס'' ט"ו ס"ג, ולאסור אשה על בעלה מבואר באהע"ז סי"א ס"ד.

ולגבי גדר דרישה וחקירה, עמש"כ ברמ"א סט"ו ס"ג בשם ריב"ש דאף דדין מרומה צריך דו"ח כדיני נפשות אינו ממש כדיני נפשות, שאם אמר אחד "איני יודע" מכ"מ אין הדין בטל , אבל בפתחי תשובה אהע"ז סק"צ הביא מהר"ב אשכנזי בשם כמה וכמה ראשונים, דהיינו רמב"ם, רמ"ה, ר"י, ור"ן שדין מרומה הוא ממש כדיני נפשות ואם אמר אחד איני יודע הדין בטל, ומצטט שם לדברי הש"ך בחו"מ ס' ל"ג סקט"ז שמסביר שהיות שכל הטעם שלא בעי דו"ח הוא מטעם כדי שלא תנעול דלת, ממילא במקום שיש חשש דין מרומה אוקמוה שוב אדאורייתא, וצריך עדות שיכול להזימו וממילא אם אמר איני יודע כל הדין בטל.

ובכלל יש לע' שאפי' בדיני ממונות הרי הטעם שביטלו חז"ל דין דרישה וחקירה רק כדי שלא תנעול דלת לפני לוים, וכ"כ הסמ"ע בס"ל סק"א זה דוקא בדיני ממונות השכיחים אבל לדון בחבלות דלא שכיחי ולית בהו חסרון כיס אפשר שצריך דו"ח, ובנידון דידן הוצאת הלעז דומה לחבלות שאין בהן חסרון כיס ואף שאיסורם גדול מאוד שמבואר חומרם בחו"מ ס"א ס"ו, סכ"ז ס"ב, ס' רכ"ח ס"א, ס' ת"כ סל"ח וסל"ט. ואם אמרו שצריך בהם דו"ח לדון בהוצאת שם רע כדי להוצאי ממון וודאי פשוט שכש"כ שמוטל על בי"ד גופא שכדי שיהיו מותרים הם גופא לבייש יהי' מקודם דו"ח. וחוץ מזה עמש"כ בח"ח הל' רכילות רפ"ט בבמ"ח שכמו שגרמא בניזקין אסור אע"ג דפטור מתשלומין, כן הוא בהוצאת שם רע, הרי היו צריכין ליזהר בזה הרבה.

ד) לאסור אשה לבעלה:, ע' בב"ש אהע"ז סי"א סקט"ז בשם מהרשל סי"א דלאסור אשת איש לכו"ע לא מהני עדות שלא בפני בעל דין אף בדיעבד, ובפ"ת שם כמה דעות דכדי להפריש מאיסור אפשר דמותר שלא בפני בע"ד משום דזכות הוא להפריש ישראל מאיסור, ונמצא לפי"ז בנד"ד שעשו גם בזה היפוך הדין, כי לאסור על בעלה הראשון לא נמצא היתר לקבל שלא בפניו כשאינו אלם וכו', משא"כ כדי לאסור על בעלה השני מותר לת' הרמ"א בשם מהר"ר הירץ מבריסק ולדעת המאירי.

Mendel Epstein sentenced to 10 years in jail for forcing men to give a Get

NJ.COM    A prominent Lakewood rabbi convicted of helping to arrange the kidnapping of Orthodox Jewish men who refused to grant their wives religious divorces was sentenced to 10 years in prison on Tuesday.

The sentence for Rabbi Mendel Epstein, 70, is less than what the federal government had requested for a man prosecutors said was the head of a well-organized operation that kidnapped and beat men. But it also was more than what his defense attorney argued was deserving of a man who devoted his life to good deeds and charitable acts.

The sentence was one, though, that U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson said was necessary to deter others in the Orthodox Jewish community from continuing what federal prosecutors called "paid vigilantism."

"No one is permitted to commit acts of violence against another," Wolfson said during the three-hour sentencing proceeding in Trenton. "It is not the law of our society and what we live under."

R Shmuel Kaminetsky to attend AJOP Convention in Baltimore January 24-26

R Shalom Kaminetsky rumored to be coming to Jerusalem soon for a student's chasuna

Just received a call that R Shalom Kaminetsky is coming to Jerusalem and that there is talk about demonstrations against him. Don't have any more information now - will post it as it comes in.

Mendel Epstein trial: Tamar's lawyer Ephraim Goldfein ordered to testify and it won't be held against him

Mendel Epstein Torture for Get ring: Martin Wolmark sentenced to 38 months in jail

ABC New

An Orthodox rabbi was sentenced Monday to more than three years in prison for his role in a ring of Jewish men who used brutal methods and tools, including handcuffs and electric cattle prods, to torture unwilling husbands into granting their wives religious divorces.

Martin Wolmark, 57, of Monsey, New York, had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit extortion. Ten men in all were convicted for their roles in the plot.

Rabbi Nota Greenblatt will be in Silver Spring today to do conversions

 Just received this email

Rabbi Greenblatt will be in Silver Spring today to officiate over conversions.  (Guess that Barry Freundel is not available today.)  The mikvah is at 8901 Georgia Avenue.  He will be leaving from BWI airport at 3:15.  I was told that there will be protestors at airport at that time and was asked to help publicize

No Fault divorce - a frum lawyer's perspective

Guest post by  Moshe Anwalt who a lawyer dealing with family law 

This deals with issues raised regarding the issue of whether women have a right to a Get on demand

 http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2015/12/chanukah-and-claim-that-woman-has-right.html

---------

Yesterday's post raised a key issue that deserves special treatment: Is it proper to have a divorce system where either spouse can exit the marriage without any consequences?

The idea of unilateral, no-fault divorce is a relatively new phenomenon, both as a legal standard and as a cultural norm. Western society frowned upon divorce and the legal systems required a judicial decision based upon a finding of fault in order to grant a divorce.

It is not surprising, therefore, that chazal and the later poskim created numerous obstacles to ending a marriage - ketubah and cherem, to name two examples.

In that way, the agenda promoted by "Agunah" advocates - will definitely in tune with modern mores and assumptions about the nature of marriage - goes against the grain of thousands of years of halacha, not to mention societal conventions that were held by Jews and non-Jews alike.

What is noteworthy, however, is not simply the novelty of the pro-divorce agenda, but the discriminatory fashion in which that agenda is applied, at least as far as gender is concerned.

The JOFA Guide

A clear example of this is the "Guide to Jewish Divorce and the Beit Din System," published by the Orthodox Jewish feminist organization "JOFA."  You can find the guide at: http://jofa.org/sites/default/files/uploaded_documents/beit_din_guide_0.pdf

While the guide is otherwise useful and presents an accurate description of the Jewish divorce process, it makes some startling statements about unilateral, no-fault divorce. On page 16, the guide defines an Agunah as follows:

"An agunah is a woman chained to a dead marriage. ... "

The guide goes on to argue that a get should always be done immediately and may not be used to improve the party's legal position in the settlement (page 18):

"It is wrong for either party to use a Get for leverage in divorce proceedings. As soon as it becomes clear that there will be no reconciliation, the Get should be written and delivered to the woman so that it cannot be used as a bargaining tool in financial or custody negotiations."

While this paragraph would indicate that JOFA looks askance at women who refuse to take a get, the guide actually clarifies that this is not the case and the wife - and only the wife - is entitled to refuse to take a get. The guide continues (page 10):

"7. ARE THERE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A WOMAN SHOULD REFUSE TO ACCEPT A GET?

... It may also be legitimate to refuse to accept a Get if the woman will be compelled to also accept an unconscionable settlement with regard to spousal and/or child support or custody. Another circumstance in which it may be recommended for a woman to refuse to accept a Get is a situation in which the Get is based on false allegations against the woman. ....

Note: The decision to refuse to accept a Get is a significant one and should only be undertaken with a great deal of forethought and in consultation with an attorney and a rabbi."

According to JOFA, there are four cases where a woman is well within her rights to refuse to take a get from her husband:

1) The wife is accused of "false allegations."

2) The woman will receive an "unconscionable settlement" with regard to spousal support

3) The woman will receive an "unconscionable settlement" with regard to child support

4) The woman will receive an "unconscionable settlement" with regard to "custody"

In scenario 1, essentially JOFA gives carte blanche to women to hold out and keep their husbands in a dead marriage.  As for the other cases where a woman is "justified" in refusing a get, JOFA concedes that the wife can use a get as a leverage.

Rivka and Avraham

To illustrate this, think of the following example (the names are completely fictional):

Rivka and Avraham live in a modest home in a suburban "out of town" Jewish community in the United States. Avraham is a successful saleman, while his wife is a well-known architect. After many years of marriage and all the children having grown up and left the house, Avrfaham has a run-in with the Feds, as a result of criminal activity in which Rivka was a minor participant. Rivka asks Avraham for a get and takes him to Beis Din, through a toen.

At the Beis Din, and after the parties sign a binding arbitration agreement (shtar beirurin), Reb Berl, the dayan, asks Avraham if he agrees to give a get, and Avraham responds in the affirmative.

As the Beis Din is about to set a date for a siddur get, Reb Berl tells the parties that they must be separated before the get is done - and must remain separated after the get as well. At this point, Rivka's toen tells the Beis Din that his client will not leave the house, even though she is the one who demanded the get. Rivka tells the dayan the the familial home is jointly owned and therefore she has a right to it. Rivka and her toen add that the house is worth $500,000 - a fact which Avraham stipulates to.

Avraham, who is well versed in both halacha and secular law, proposes that he buy out wife wife's share of the house. Rivka responds that she does not agree under any circumstances and that she wants to stay in the house, without having to but out Avraham's share.

Moreover, argues Rivka, she is entitled to post-divorce spousal support, as her income is slightly lower than Avraham's. Avraham rejects this and observes - correctly - that halacha does not recognize a right to spousal support after the get and that, under state law, the aware of spousal support is a matter of discretion and, given the circumstances, no judge would rule that spousal support is justified.

It is at this point that the dayan issues the following ruling:

1. Avraham will put $250,000 in escrow - immediately - for Rivka's benefit.

2. As soon as Rivka leaves the house, the escrow agent will transfer her the full sum.

3. Once the parties are separated, the Beis Din will set a date for a get.

4. Since both parties consented to get divorce, the wife is no longer entitled to spousal support. Nevertheless, after the get, the husband will pay 12 months payments, as payment of Rivka's kesuba (as per the opinion of the Chazon Ish), to the amount of $4,000 per month. While the wife is not entitled to the kesubah, the Beis Din sees fit to award the kesubah since Rivka's suit for divorce was based upon the criminal acts of Avraham, even though Rivka was aware of the criminal acts and even participated in them.

-------------

Bracha is not happy with the ruling, despite the fact that it conforms to the halacha - and state law, since the parties had signed a binding arbitration contract. She approaches a local Rosh Yeshiva, Reb Baruch, and asks for his help. He writes a letter, on the yeshiva stationary, declaring Rivka an Agunah and calling for protests against Avraham for refusing to give a get. Additionally, the Rosh Yeshiva forbids Avraham for counting toward a minyan or receiving any honor in shul.

Reb Baruch further advises Rivka to take an attorney and go to secular court, with a motion to vacate the arbitration award and petition for spousal support.

Going back to the JOFA Beit Din guide, under the criteria delineated there, Rivka would be considered an Agunah - despite the fact that Avraham agreed immediately to give a get and did not seek to infringe upon any of Rivka's rights.

Since JOFA permits a woman to refuse a get if the settlement is - at least in her mind - unconscionable, Rivka was justified in refusing to accept the decision of the Beis Din. At the same time, since the marriage is "dead," Avraham is wrong not to give a get and he should be shunned for not doing so.

This story, while entirely fictional, is typical of divorce cases today - and it shows how the divorce standards being proposed by Agunah advocates lead to incorrect (and unjust) results.

The Double Standard

The double standard offered by such groups - and JOFA in particular - goes even further. Here is the Guide's advice (page 18):

"When someone is told that a woman refused to accept a Get, the listener must question whether and why the Get may have been refused prior to determining that the woman is simply recalcitrant. There may be valid reasons for a woman to refuse a Get. (See FAQs Section II:7.) One should refrain from premature judgments and gossip."

If we unpack that statement, we notice how far the double standard actually goes. While a husband can be criticized and ostracized without being heard, the wife is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

Summary

The opposition to no-fault divorce is absolutely rooted in the sources and there are many good policy reasons for not changing the rules, even where there is room for halachic flexibility. Chazal, in their great wisdom, understood that marriage is not to be tampered.  The current trend in Western societies to create intimate relationships without any mutual obligations is abhorrent to Judaism and it was precisely to avoid this breakdown that chazal created safeguards and set legal boundaries.

However, whichever side we take on the debate of no-fault versus fault divorce, we cannot apply the standards arbitrarily and treat husbands any different than wives. The public discourse has to be altered and the frame of the debate refocused - not just on blogs, but also in shuls and educational institutions. Once people (especially askanim and rabbanim) are more aware of the issues, they will, hopefully, display more sensitivity in dealing with self-proclaimed "Agunahs."

Chanukah and the claim that a woman has a right to a Get on demand

Guest Post

 

A Freilichen Chanukah to all visitors to this site, who come to hear what Da'as Torah has to say on various issues, 

Sholom u'Brochoh!

With the last rays of Chanukah flickering into oblivion, already searing through Chodesh Teves, the darkest month, along with the rest of the cold and dark winter, )in particular going with Rabbeinu Tam's zman shkiah,:-) I thought that perhaps it would be appropriate to grab the opportunity for a "mesiba". What?? Yes, a get-together l'kovod Chanukah!

Compounding that with the minhag to engage in pilpul on Torah sheba'al peh, since Chanukah is a Yom Tov of Torah sheba'al peh - which brings me to the focal point: our enemies' intent on shikchas HaTorah.

Of course we know that the Yevonim would have let us *study* Torah, but we know that it was only tolerable as a *chochmoh*. To let us *observe* (pardon my *antics*) the Torah? Aha! That was a different story. Again here, we know that malpractice of Torah, despite preservation of the text, is nonetheless shikchas HaTorah.

Eras have come and gone with arising with various issues of threats to Jewish Identity. For example, the Reform Movement (whose founding fathers were very learned) that started out with the changing of direction of the bimah to face the kehilla, bringing in change after change, up to the point that there is virtually nothing that they observe.

We all know that on Chanukah, that we again ask the famous kashya of the Bais Yosef, dor achar dor, but here, appropriate for this site and more so, in the spirit of this site, we wish to, nonetheless, engage in a pilpul that has to do with Issues of Jewish Identity.

Unfortunately, we are exposed to secular society and to their ideas, causing us to adopt them as second nature. We are exposed to society that stresses 'women's rights' or 'equal rights'. We are pressured to find it unconscionable that a woman in the 21st century cannot free herself from marriageable bondage among our ethnic society, so we are thus compelled to go as far as administering forceful and dangerous coercion of a get, then, when that ceases to be an option, to just annul a marriage in order to not necessitate a get (without even hearing out the other party, as we know) - amounting to an alternate route to shikchas HaTorah.

Yes, some of may argue (with consternation) that this issue has been discussed quite some time before, but others, on the contrary, would (gleefully) want it revisited, as is perceived that the more it is discussed, the more we see ignorance on the basics of such a core issue, finding it imperative to one more time, lay out on the table.

Hence, without further ado, the shayla: is there any basis for get on demand? Are we halachically, ethically or morally coerce or pressure or coax or cajole a man to do so? After doing some research, or perhaps, iyun, and with pilpul chaverim, no one was able to indicate to me where it is brought al pi Shulchan Aruch that although when a get cannot be coerced, it is 'yashrus' to give one and that there is no need for any m'kor and that it should be done nonetheless out of common sense! I found it odd that such a vastly popular notion should have no mention in anywhere in Tanach , Shas or poskim.

Our Gemara mentions dinim we must do out Chassidus (Pirkei Avos is all chassidus). In nezikin there are things that's we may be potur b'dinai Odom and yet, chayav b'dinai Shomayim. There are halachos- al pi din, to do because of "v'osisoh hayoshor v'hatov" and in the Shulchan Aruch there instances where"hamachmir tovo olov brochoh". In short, we see many scenarios where we are to conduct ourselves beyond the letter of Law, and many times demanded so by Halacha itself! So again, and from new perspective - why is there no m'kor for get on demand, especially if it is such a fundamental?

Furthermore, perusing through teshuvos of igunah, we often find the classic case where we need to be mattir a woman because her husband disappeared. There are cases then where the husband is not well and physically or mentally incompetent to give a get due to illness. Does anyone remember where there was a teshuva how to get a woman out of a marriage because she simply wanted out because she didn't feel the relationship would work out?

After humbly expressing all formalities to all talmidei chachamim and ready to be shredded apart, (already putting forth an urgent request for anybody to come to my defense,) with ra'ayos back and forth, I put before you (albeit with great trepidation) my thoughts:

If I may, I bring a ra'ayah from Yevomos 106b on the Mishnah "Mitzvas chalitzah: bo hu v'yovimto l'bais din v'hain m'si'in lo eitzah hogenes lo she'nemar (translation: he and his yevomoh (- his childless brother's wife that he can marry - and by force) come to Bais Din), "v'koru lo ziknai iro". Rashi says on the words "eitzah hogenes lo" says: go to those who are comparable to you and do not bring in machlokes to your house. The Bartenurah elaborates a bit more: if he is young and she is old or he is old and she is young, they tell him that what do you need an old one for? What do you need a young one for? Go to those like you!

Question: isn't that common sense? And furthermore, why is there no counterpart to this Mishnah in Masechta Gittin that if she wants a get and he does not, that we tell him something like, 'Look, it's not going to work, you need to go on with your life'?

Perhaps I can answer that the Torah makes a distinction as follows: in yibum, the yevamah never agreed to get married to this man, who happens to be her deceased husband's brother, so *Da'as Torah* states (to the extent that it makes it to the Mishna) that although we can't control him, we at least advise him or steer him, but by gittin, since this bond was done with HER COMMITMENT, there is not even an *ethical* suggestion of advising or steering him, even in the most gentle way, to appease her.

One more ra'ayah (and hopefully others will construct (or perhaps even destruct) upon my cornerstone,): the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom prohibiting one to divorce a wife against her will: is it not ethically wrong to force a man against his will to stay married to a woman that he dislikes? Apparently, this question is not asked nowadays, only the other way around : how can the rabbis force a woman to stay married to someone that SHE dislikes? (By the way, the Israeli Rabbanut has found by a poll that more women refuse a get than men.) We see from here that it is ethically perfect to l'chatchillah make a takanah binding (or 'enslaving') a man to his wife. Therefore, we see that the same would apply vice versa, binding a woman to her husband - especially that we don't find any ethical notion or suggestion otherwise.

Thanking you all for your audience and best wishes for wonderful winter,

May we take along the light and warmth of Chanukah.....